Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that data is public, which is mild value, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite the cursor and limit parameters. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the sibling-routing clause. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile, leaving the description responsible mainly for routing, which it handles well. It could mention pagination via cursor to be fully complete for a 6-param list tool, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description only echoes the status filter, which is the schema's own example; it adds no syntax, default, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Kalshi market records) with the added qualifier that it returns public market data filtered by status. It explicitly distinguishes itself from kalshi_market (single contract) and the historical variants, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence names the alternatives (kalshi_market, kalshi_markets_history, kalshi_historical_markets) and the conditions that select them: one contract vs. historical data. This is explicit when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.